- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tired of winning yet?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 11/30/16 at 1:55 pm
quote:
The Wall Street Journal reported that Pence had taken the lead in negotiating with parent company United Technologies officials, and had discussed priorities for the upcoming Republican Congress, including a tax reform package that could benefit manufacturers.
CNBC, which first broke the news, reported the company decided the savings that would result from moving to Mexico was not worth the fallout of incurring the wrath of the new administration, including the threat to the business it currently does with the government, such as orders for defense equipment.
Carrier workers reacted with delight at the news.
“I would like to tell [Trump] 'Thank you for going out of your way and taking your holiday away from your family and working on Carrier employees and sticking to your word and going to bat for all of us and keeping our jobs here,'” Robin Maynard, a Carrier employee for 24 years, told "Fox & Friends" Wednesday.
Hell no, good for Trump. That is ordinary people's lives he is helping. 1000 people that will not lose their jobs, Kudos!
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 1:56 pm
5
Posted on 11/30/16 at 1:58 pm to FreddieMac
Tired of winning yet?
n.o.p.e.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:14 pm to goatmilker
Warm fuzzies all around.... But this wreaks of central planning. Whatever happened to capitalism and free market economics? Should the (pseudo) government be praised for bullying a company to make a decision that benefits 1000 US citizens over their own long-term profits?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:15 pm to atekipp
quote:
Should the (pseudo) government be praised for bullying a company
Is it bullying though? I'd like to call it incentivizing them to stick around
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:17 pm to atekipp
quote:
atekipp
New Orleans Saints Fan
Dallas
Member since Mar 2012
1 post
Wow, that's an alter on the backburner. Impressive.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:19 pm to FreddieMac
It is WHY we elected him, the rest was just gravy 
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:19 pm to atekipp
quote:
Should the (pseudo) government be praised for bullying a company to make a decision that benefits 1000 US citizens over their own long-term profits?
When said company gets 10% of its revenue from the government, I think the customer has a right to be heard.
If you don't want to be persuaded, don't take $5.6 billion from the government.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:21 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
Tired of winning yet?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:22 pm to therick711
quote:
I think the customer has a right to be heard.
AbsolutelyPosted on 11/30/16 at 2:31 pm to Y.A. Tittle
not an alter, just never posted.
i say "bully" b/c government contracts were threatened, media pressure was exerted, and potential tariffs were on the table. To be fair, I guess it wasn't 100% bullying since they did offer tax cuts if Carrier stayed (more central planning).
I do not see the government interfering in the operational decisions of specific US corporations as a good thing. Even if it has a net benefit to the US people.
i say "bully" b/c government contracts were threatened, media pressure was exerted, and potential tariffs were on the table. To be fair, I guess it wasn't 100% bullying since they did offer tax cuts if Carrier stayed (more central planning).
I do not see the government interfering in the operational decisions of specific US corporations as a good thing. Even if it has a net benefit to the US people.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:34 pm to therick711
there are specific federal laws/rules about the requirements for government subcontractors (including limitations on subcontracting and outsourcing). if the executive branch thinks these laws and rules are not sufficient to protect the interest of the American public, then the executive branch should put pressure on congress to make changes to those laws.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:35 pm to atekipp
quote:
Warm fuzzies all around.... But this wreaks of central planning. Whatever happened to capitalism and free market economics? Should the (pseudo) government be praised for bullying a company to make a decision that benefits 1000 US citizens over their own long-term profits?
Gov't created the problem with free trade, it is up to gov't not free markets to fix the problem so that free markets can kick in.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:35 pm to FreddieMac
phone and a pen
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:41 pm to FreddieMac
so you fight socialism with more socialism, in order to fix.... capitalism?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:46 pm to atekipp
quote:its called leverage. Hope this helps
i say "bully" b/c government contracts were threatened, media pressure was exerted, and potential tariffs were on the table. To be fair, I guess it wasn't 100% bullying since they did offer tax cuts if Carrier stayed (more central planning
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:48 pm to atekipp
quote:
so you fight socialism with more socialism, in order to fix.... capitalism?
In your own words, describe to me what is Socialist about a U.S. President making a deal with a private company, who also does business with the government.
What specifically is socialist about Trump threatening to pull government money and pass regulations that would harm their decision to move?
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:06 pm to atekipp
quote:
there are specific federal laws/rules about the requirements for government subcontractors (including limitations on subcontracting and outsourcing). if the executive branch thinks these laws and rules are not sufficient to protect the interest of the American public, then the executive branch should put pressure on congress to make changes to those laws.
There was no need to do that. The government spends $5.6 Billion with United Technologies. If United Technologies wanted to keep their business, they were going to have to listen to and accommodate their customer. I guess someone with a brain decided it wasn't worth jeopardizing $5.6 billion in revenue over $65 million in alleged cost savings.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:19 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
a U.S. President making a deal with a private company, who also does business with the government.
That statement strikes at the very core concepts of private ownership (capitalism) vs. state or collective ownership (socialism)
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:22 pm to FreddieMac
I can't find anywhere to post this so I'll just post this here:
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:25 pm to atekipp
quote:
I do not see the government interfering in the operational decisions of specific US corporations as a good thing.
So, you must really hate Obama?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News